[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42215-42217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20174]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition from Victor A. Fleming

    This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a petition 
submitted to the NHTSA under 49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2) (formerly section 
124 of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, as 
amended). 

[[Page 42216]]

    In March 1995, Mr. Victor A. Fleming, an attorney associated with 
the Gill Law Firm of Little Rock, Arkansas, petitioned the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to order a safety recall 
of certain motor vehicles produced by the Chrysler Corporation 
(Chrysler) for remedy of an alleged defect in the park lock system of 
the automatic transmissions installed in those vehicles. Specifically, 
Mr. Fleming requested that Chrysler be ordered to conduct a safety 
recall of its 1984 through 1991 model year vehicles equipped with 
console-mounted transmission shift lever assemblies, in order to 
adequately notify owner/operators that the shift lever can be moved out 
of the ``Park'' position after the ignition key has been removed. The 
petitioner proposed that, as a remedy for the alleged defect, a readily 
visible warning should be installed in the subject vehicles.
    The safety defect alleged in this matter does not refer to the 
failure or malfunction of any component or operating system of the 
vehicle. Rather, the petition requests that the manufacturer be ordered 
to undertake a safety recall ``* * * for the purpose of adequately 
notifying * * *'' owners of the subject vehicles of certain design and 
operating features of the automatic transmission park lock system. The 
petitioner argues that such notification is necessary to provide a 
proper warning that the transmission park lock system permits removal 
of the engine ignition key when the transmission is not in the ``Park'' 
position. For the reasons set forth below, Mr. Fleming's petition is 
denied.
    The petitioner presented as a documentary account of this design 
characteristic, the experience of a client severely injured when struck 
by her 1990 Dodge LeBaron convertible equipped with a console mounted 
gear shift lever. According to the petition, the vehicle had been 
parked on a slight incline with the engine ignition turned off and the 
ignition key removed, when it began an unpowered rollaway and struck 
the driver while she was walking away from the vehicle. The petitioner 
also stated that the driver believed that the transmission had been 
shifted into, or toward, the ``Park'' position, as was the driver's 
stated habit to do so. The petition is silent as to whether the parking 
brake was applied or failed to function properly. The petitioner's 
client filed suit against Chrysler in January 1994, and a jury 
subsequently ruled for Chrysler. Reportedly, a motion for a new trial 
is pending.
    This petitioner's allegations are limited to 1984 through 1991 
Chrysler vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions and a center 
floor console shifter. Petitioner argues that the design of the 
transmission park lock system is defective in that even though the 
system performs as it was intended, the design itself represents a 
safety defect. The petitioner presents a detailed discussion of the 
relevant technical issues, reflecting extensive research in support of 
the litigation against Chrysler on behalf of his client. Included as an 
attachment to the petition is a copy of the NHTSA closing report for 
Engineering Analysis, EA91-010, which concerned the park lock system 
installed in 1981-1990 Chrysler Corporation vehicles with steering 
column-mounted gear selector levers.
    In EA91-010, the issue of concern was defined broadly as failure of 
the transmission to properly engage or lock in the ``Park'' position 
when properly shifted to that position by the vehicle operator. It was 
established through engineering tests and design analyses that when 
properly shifted to the ``gated Park'' position, the transmission would 
effectively prevent self mobility or unpowered vehicle rollaway 
incidents, and that the design of the shift mechanism disclosed no 
mechanical or hydraulic defect that would cause the subject 
transmissions to shift from ``Park'' to ``Reverse'' without external 
input.
    The vehicle operated by the petitioner's client was a Chrysler 
LeBaron convertible equipped with Chrysler's type A-413 or A-460 
automatic transmission. These two transmission models were the subject 
of EA91-010. In the Le Baron convertible model, the shift lever was 
center console mounted, as opposed to being mounted on the steering 
column in the sedan. The petition argues that the characteristics of 
the design of the floor mounted shift linkage present a safety defect 
in that the key can be removed from the vehicle without the shift lever 
being placed in the ``Park'' position. This, according to petitioner, 
increases the likelihood of injury from an unintended rollaway in that 
the operator may leave the vehicle without placing the transmission in 
``Park'' or applying the parking brake.
    It should be noted that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 
(FMVSS) No. 114, ``Theft Protection,'' sets minimum performance 
requirements for the transmission park lock system of vehicles with a 
GVWR of 10,000 pounds or less. At the time the subject vehicles were 
manufactured, the purpose of FMVSS No. 114 was ``theft protection to 
reduce the incidence of accidents resulting from unauthorized use.'' In 
1990 FMVSS No. 114 was amended (effective September 1, 1992) to specify 
``requirements to reduce the incidence of crashes resulting from 
rollaway of parked vehicles.'' For vehicles manufactured prior to 
September 1, 1992, FMVSS No. 114 required that vehicles must have a key 
locking system that prevents vehicle steering or self-mobility, or 
both, when the key is removed. The public docket detailing promulgation 
of FMVSS No. 114 is complete in its presentation and analyses of 
relevant technical issues.
    To meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 114 as they existed prior to 
September 1, 1992, manufacturers typically installed a steering column 
lock to prevent steering with the ignition key removed. Alternatively, 
the requirement to prevent vehicle self-mobility with the key removed 
was usually addressed by installation of a transmission shift lever 
lock. The designs of such shift lever locks required that an automatic 
transmission be shifted into the ``Park'' position in order to enable 
removal of the ignition key, and after the key was removed, shifting 
the transmission from the ``Park'' position to any other gear was 
prevented. Many vehicle manufacturers installed both types of locks 
even though not required to do so by FMVSS No. 114. Chrysler chose to 
use only the steering column lock to prevent steering of the subject 
vehicles.
    On April 5, 1988, NHTSA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) to address the problems of inadvertent steering column lock-up 
and inadvertent shifting of the transmission. Following the normal 
procedures associated with the issuance of a rulemaking action, NHTSA 
issued on May 22, 1990, an amendment to FMVSS No. 114 which required 
that each vehicle be equipped with a key locking system that, whenever 
the key is removed:
    a. Prevents normal activation of the vehicle's engine or motor, and
    b. Prevents either steering or forward self-mobility of the vehicle 
or both. For a vehicle equipped with an automatic transmission with a 
Park position, the key locking system must prevent removal of the key 
unless the transmission or transmission shift lever is locked in 
``Park,'' or becomes locked in Park as a result of removing the key.
    The purpose of the amendment, applicable to certain vehicles 
manufactured after September 1, 1992, was to preclude operation of the 
shift lever by children, thus preventing child injuries associated with 
vehicle rollaway incidents. 

[[Page 42217]]

    The petitioner notes that many manufacturers had installed such 
key-locking systems in vehicles with automatic transmissions prior to 
the September 1, 1992, effective date of the amendment. The petitioner 
argued that for reasons of cost and possibly other considerations, 
Chrysler elected to limit the installation of such key locking systems 
to vehicles in which the transmission shift lever was mounted on the 
steering column. Chrysler-manufactured vehicles with the gear selector 
lever installed in a center-floor console were not equipped with such a 
key lock system prior to model year 1993.
    The petitioner contends that Chrysler failed to adequately warn 
owners of the subject vehicles with floor-mounted transmission shift 
levers that removal of the ignition key from the ignition switch did 
not indicate that the transmission had been locked in the ``Park'' 
position. Because of this alleged failure to provide ``adequate 
warning'' of this design characteristic, the petitioner claims that 
operators of the subject vehicles were led to believe in error that 
self-mobility of the vehicle was impossible once the key had been 
removed from the ignition switch. The petitioner also alleges that 
incidents of unpowered vehicle rollaway had resulted in accidents and 
injuries.
    While the petitioner presented examples of incidents where 
unintended rollaways had occurred in 1984-1991 Chrysler vehicles 
equipped with automatic transmissions and floor mounted shifters, the 
petition does not set forth any facts establishing that Chrysler 
vehicles differed either in design or performance from other vehicles 
that allowed removal of the ignition key without placing the 
transmission in the ``Park'' position. Also, as noted above, the 
petition does not allege that the involved vehicles presented a safety 
hazard stemming from a component or system failure.
    The petitioner asks that Chrysler be ordered, under the 
notification and remedy provisions of the Act, to provide notification 
together with a readily visible warning that the subject vehicles can, 
in fact, roll away when unattended if the transmission is not properly 
shifted into the ``Park'' position, even though the ignition key has 
been removed.
    The petitioner recognized that such an advisory appears in the 
LeBaron owner's manual:

    Note: A console mounted shift lever can be moved out of PARK 
after the ignition key has been removed. Therefore, it is very 
important that children left in the vehicle be cautioned against 
touching the shift lever. Also, the parking brake should be fully 
applied before leaving the vehicle, especially when parked on an 
incline.

    A principal point of the petitioner's request is that the ``Note'' 
as stated above, does not provide ``adequate warning.'' The petitioner 
cited testimony during the trial in which a human factors expert stated 
that the ``Note'' does not constitute a warning, and that it makes no 
mention of the fact that the key can be removed from the ignition even 
if the transmission is not in the ``Park'' position. The petition also 
cites the presence of a larger number of warnings contained in the 
owner's manual for 1990 Ford Mustang vehicle equipped with a floor 
mounted shifter allowing removal of the key without the transmission 
placed in ``Park.'' Petitioner alleges that these warnings are more 
effective in that they provide more specific advice about the 
characteristics of the shift lock and the potential for unintended 
rollaway. Petitioner does not, however, present any data suggesting 
that these warnings are more effective than those contained in the 
Chrysler owner's manual.
    The petitioner has submitted a detailed presentation of his 
request, as well as the reasons therefor. Notwithstanding this 
presentation, however, NHTSA does not believe that it would be 
appropriate to grant the petition. The park lock system found on the 
Chrysler vehicles that are the subject of this petition was not unique. 
Manufacturers other than Chrysler also produced vehicles during this 
time period in which the key could be removed without locking the 
transmission in ``Park.'' Petitioner has not produced any evidence or 
information suggesting that the Chrysler vehicles created a higher risk 
to safety than these similar vehicles. While it is the agency's 
position that existing Federal motor vehicle safety standards are 
minimum performance benchmarks and that compliance with these standards 
does not preclude the agency from deciding that a safety-related defect 
exists, the vehicles in question complied with the requirements of 
FMVSS No. 114 as they existed at the time they were manufactured. The 
later promulgation of an amendment to this Standard to address the 
hazard of unintended rollaways caused by failure to place the 
transmission in ``Park'' or movement of the shift lever in an 
unattended parked vehicle does not establish that earlier designs were 
defective, but reflects the conclusion that existing designs can be 
improved. The evidence presented by the petitioner does not indicate 
that the design presents a safety-related defect under the Act. Thus, 
after considering all of the issues raised by this petition; and 
recognizing the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA's limited 
resources to best accomplish the agency's safety mission, the agency 
has decided to deny the petition.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(a); delegations of authority at 49 
CFR 1.50 and 501.8)

    Issued on: August 3, 1995.
Michael B. Brownlee,
Associate Administrator for Safety Assurance.
[FR Doc. 95-20174 Filed 8-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P